Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

How do we force immigrants to assimilate?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, AsksWhy said:

Us VS Them... terrible topic. Just wondering why so many ppl respond to this crap?

You tell us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You do that?  Isn't it a bit dodgy?

What is a stranger?  Someone you've just met, right?  Is inviting your new neighbor or coworker for dinner "dodgy"? 

But aside from that, I have invited people I have just met who are down on their luck home on a couple of occasions.  In my experience, most people are decent although I have to say I have had some sketchy moments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dialamah said:

What is a stranger?  Someone you've just met, right?  Is inviting your new neighbor or coworker for dinner "dodgy"? 

But aside from that, I have invited people I have just met who are down on their luck home on a couple of occasions.  In my experience, most people are decent although I have to say I have had some sketchy moments.

I was talking about walking around a big city, smiling at anyone who doesn't look like you, and inviting them home for supper.  Eventually the men in the white coats will catch up with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I was talking about walking around a big city, smiling at anyone who doesn't look like you, and inviting them home for supper.  Eventually the men in the white coats will catch up with you.

Ah, I see.  That seems a tremendous leap from the suggestion to "smile at an obvious immigrant, talk to them, invite them for dinner".  Being open to new people doesn't mean throwing common sense out the window, eh?  Even the couple of down-on-their-luck strangers I have invited home had to pass a basic sanity (and smell) test. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Ah, I see.  That seems a tremendous leap from the suggestion to "smile at an obvious immigrant, talk to them, invite them for dinner".  Being open to new people doesn't mean throwing common sense out the window, eh?  Even the couple of down-on-their-luck strangers I have invited home had to pass a basic sanity (and smell) test. 

Well, I was responding to Argus, not wallflower.  And of course I was attempting to be light hearted. 

I'll try to do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the original post the rate of assimilation was mentioned as a concern.  The reality is that even the 3rd generation Canadians did not assimilate to the First Nations' values and way of life.  They did not try.  To them this was a land of resources waiting to be stolen and exploited by the Queen.  They decides they were going to communicate in English.  Some decided to communicate in French.  But nowadays immigration from English or French speaking European countries is small.  There are many coming from India who decide they will communicate in Punjabi and then there are many coming from China who decide they will speak Cantonese.  Why would one blame them or expect them to "assimilate"  ?   British and French were neither the first nor the last to arrive.

 

If you ask me about my point of view (I come neither from a British or French descent , nor from Asian or African or Latino or Philippino or First Nation origin), I think this multicultural stuff is pretty messed up, leading to fragmentation in society, inability to make common decisions and general dissatisfaction.   I have to communicate with people that I cannot associate with and have little in common and it becomes difficult to impossible to find those that would be like minded.   Look at it this way, if you have contact only with Indian, African, Chinese ..whatever women and you are not interested in them, the chances of finding a woman from a suitable origin that you actually like become impossible.  So the contact with the rest is a waste of time; boring life.

 

Edited by cougar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cougar said:

I have to communicate with people that I cannot associate with and have little in common and it becomes difficult to impossible to find those that would be like minded.

Try coming at it as a human being from Earth. Smile, make eye contact, show interest...the rest should come naturally enough.  How hard can it be?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Try coming at it as a human being from Earth. Smile, make eye contact, show interest...the rest should come naturally enough.  How hard can it be?

Don't get me wrong.  I do my share of "Hello, How are you"s  that I have learned are meaningless.

You should know what I mean, though.  Even within our own nation we do not make friends with everyone and some people are more attractive than others.  

Let's just say I have taken the multicultural / multiracial concept a step further.  I have just my dog as a friend; oh wait, I have the bears, the moose, the fish.......all those are friends.

Edited by cougar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jacee said:

What do you expect, a marching band for everyone who arrives? The numbers under the Trudeau government have exploded. Tens of thousands arrive now, and have overloaded the ability of settlement groups.

Hopefully the Conservatives get elected in the fall, and then the numbers of refugees will drop way back to numbers we can handle more easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cougar said:

In the original post the rate of assimilation was mentioned as a concern.  The reality is that even the 3rd generation Canadians did not assimilate to the First Nations' values and way of life.  They did not try.  To them this was a land of resources waiting to be stolen and exploited by the Queen.  They decides they were going to communicate in English.  Some decided to communicate in French.  But nowadays immigration from English or French speaking European countries is small.  There are many coming from India who decide they will communicate in Punjabi and then there are many coming from China who decide they will speak Cantonese.  Why would one blame them or expect them to "assimilate"  ?   British and French were neither the first nor the last to arrive.

There was no nation here when the British arrived, just isolated tribes, mostly not speaking the same language anyway. So of course they retained their own language. They built entirely separate settlements, villages and towns, and there was no mixing with natives because both wanted it that way.

There is a nation here now. Immigrants arrive because we let them. Thus we can demand they assimilate or leave. And unlike the natives, we can enforce our wishes, and should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2019 at 11:18 AM, Dougie93 said:

Seem to me all the entrepreneurs in Canada are immigrants, the immigrants are the business class, native born Canadians are the ones who are raised to be infatilized losers who expect a government make work job for life.

Mostly just the NDP types.

Edited by Realitycheck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Realitycheck said:

It is evident racism is alive and well on this forum. It is equally evident our esteemed mod is allergic to honest postings identifying said racists.

The Anti-American threads?  I see what you mean.  That said, racism is everywhere.  You can't do anything about it.  As long as there are penalties for acting on it, it'll be okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Realitycheck said:

It is evident racism is alive and well on this forum.

You mean the liberal bigotry of low expectations? Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Argus said:

There was no nation here when the British arrived, just isolated tribes, mostly not speaking the same language anyway. So of course they retained their own language. They built entirely separate settlements, villages and towns, and there was no mixing with natives because both wanted it that way.

There is a nation here now. Immigrants arrive because we let them. Thus we can demand they assimilate or leave. And unlike the natives, we can enforce our wishes, and should.

No, I cannot accept the highlighted statement.  So how come the British ended up living in the traditional territories of the First Nation tribes in much of the country?  They asked for permission?  Applied for permanent resident cards? Passed any language tests?  

I bet you, they settled where they wanted and for the most part did not listen to what they were told or did not understand it.  They probably shot whoever they did not like and this is how it all went.  Evidence can be seen in the Western movies.

Yes, the government can demand and ask everyone to swear allegiance to the Queen (who has nothing to do with Canada any more) but when the minority is a majority, things work differently.  I wouldn't be surprised if one day I am forced to study Cantonese or Punjabi to be able to buy food at the grocery store.  

And do not blame me for being the messenger ; it is all a result of policies passed by mostly Canadians of Anglo Saxon origin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cougar said:

No, I cannot accept the highlighted statement.  So how come the British ended up living in the traditional territories of the First Nation tribes in much of the country?  They asked for permission?  Applied for permanent resident cards? Passed any language tests?  

I bet you, they settled where they wanted and for the most part did not listen to what they were told or did not understand it.  They probably shot whoever they did not like and this is how it all went.  Evidence can be seen in the Western movies.

Yes, the government can demand and ask everyone to swear allegiance to the Queen (who has nothing to do with Canada any more) but when the minority is a majority, things work differently.  I wouldn't be surprised if one day I am forced to study Cantonese or Punjabi to be able to buy food at the grocery store.  

And do not blame me for being the messenger ; it is all a result of policies passed by mostly Canadians of Anglo Saxon origin.

So, looser gun laws are the answer?  Open up the gates to immigrants, but shoot them if you don't like them, and don't be surprised when they return fire?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, cougar said:

No, I cannot accept the highlighted statement.  So how come the British ended up living in the traditional territories of the First Nation tribes in much of the country?  They asked for permission?  Applied for permanent resident cards? Passed any language tests?  

I bet you, they settled where they wanted and for the most part did not listen to what they were told or did not understand it.  They probably shot whoever they did not like and this is how it all went.  Evidence can be seen in the Western movies.

Yes, the government can demand and ask everyone to swear allegiance to the Queen (who has nothing to do with Canada any more) but when the minority is a majority, things work differently.  I wouldn't be surprised if one day I am forced to study Cantonese or Punjabi to be able to buy food at the grocery store.  

And do not blame me for being the messenger ; it is all a result of policies passed by mostly Canadians of Anglo Saxon origin.

It didn’t happen like that at all.  Many of the Indigenous groups in Canada, especially in the East and Central Canada didn’t have permanent settlements.  Iroquois villages would last several years at most until the soil was depleted.  These groups didn’t really have private property in the sense we understand today.  When Europeans first settled here the land seemed infinite.  Sometimes there were surprise attacks on settlers but there was no war on the Indigenous in what is now Canada by European settlers, though many of the Indigenous groups were at war with each other. Some of the forms of torture by Indigenous, including burning alive, were horrific.  There were periods when the French allied with a particular group, the Hurons, in the fight against the English who allied with the Iroquois.  The tv/movie notions you have are inaccurate.  

In terms of this nonsense about policies passed by “anglos”, for much of Canada’s history there were around as many francophone as anglos.  In major cities across the country, a good percentage of the population is foreign born (more than half in Toronto), and a minority of these immigrants are from English speaking countries.  They can all vote and have a say in policy.  Your views are worrying and make me wonder how many people have such misconceptions.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Many of the Indigenous groups in Canada, especially in the East and Central Canada didn’t have permanent settlements.  Iroquois villages would last several years at most until the soil was depleted.  These groups didn’t really have private property in the sense we understand today.

Excuses, excuses , excuses.    So because they did not treat the land as property , the way that the Queen dealt with land in England, they did not have land and for this reason were nothing more than wildlife.  They waited for the Queen to come over and teach them what land is  and to start selling their land to them for a profit?

If First Nations ever wanted to treat land as property, they could have had their flags on each and every place there is today!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cougar said:

Excuses, excuses , excuses.    So because they did not treat the land as property , the way that the Queen dealt with land in England, they did not have land and for this reason were nothing more than wildlife.  They waited for the Queen to come over and teach them what land is  and to start selling their land to them for a profit?

If First Nations ever wanted to treat land as property, they could have had their flags on each and every place there is today!

No they likely would have fought over the territory or simply would have taken the land they needed.  Don’t project 21st century conditions and attitudes on 17th century conditions and attitudes.  You wouldn’t last living a 17th century Indigenous lifestyle and would probably beg to stay in a European settlement, which was a better place to be in just about every way because Europeans enjoyed a much higher standard of living than most Indigenous peoples.   That’s called reality. 

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious . . . .

Why didn't the indigenous inhabitants of North America colonize Europe?  Why didn't they learn metallurgy, animal domestication, seafaring ships/sailors, etc.

Seemingly, Europe's early man was no more advanced than North America's early man in roughly the same time frame.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, cougar said:

Excuses, excuses , excuses.    So because they did not treat the land as property , the way that the Queen dealt with land in England, they did not have land and for this reason were nothing more than wildlife.  They waited for the Queen to come over and teach them what land is  and to start selling their land to them for a profit?

If First Nations ever wanted to treat land as property, they could have had their flags on each and every place there is today!

You are mistaken. The fact that aboriginals did not have a concept of private property did not mean they had no desire to access and share the land fairly. 

By the way it on another note it was the English not aboriginals who chose to segregate mostly for religious reasons. 

All that is besides the point. The point is to build a country it must have a uniting set of values. That is not racist to say. People who chose to segregate may be doing so for many reasons including racist beliefs. Multi culturalism can indeed be racist in tendency just as a uniting set of values can. It depends on context and method of application of such ideas. Extreme nationalism can turn to Nazism. Multi- culturalism can serve as excellent cover to justify segregation based on racism and other isms.

I think this thread can get too quickly misconstrued as racist. The topic is do all of us, some of us or none of us choose to put a Canadian identity first. That is not a racist concept. It could be used for that but with respect to all know one is doing that. 

Inagree with Zeilt's comments and some of the points Argue makes about assimilation issues. I have zero issue deferring to aboriginal, British and French legal concepts.

I see them as the three building blocks of our laws. Minorities have contributed as well but we minorities did not have a problem understanding we needed to change our ways to adapt and we dealt with bigotry for the most part on our own. Maybe that has changed but you can't build a country based on multiple identities all wanting to talk at once. So every on shut up and cheer our Toronto Raptors. Only in Canada do we call black Americans dinosaurs and worship them. 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rue said:

The topic is do all of us, some of us or none of us choose to put a Canadian identity first.  

We could just start acting like Earthling's. It is the 21st century after all.

Quote

 

That is not a racist concept.

 

I bet my concept is the greater evil if not the greatest evil possible in many minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

 Why didn't the indigenous inhabitants of North America colonize Europe?  Why didn't they learn metallurgy, animal domestication, seafaring ships/sailors, etc.

Seemingly, Europe's early man was no more advanced than North America's early man in roughly the same time frame.

 

Why do you ask obvious questions ?  Are you implying that superior weapon technology provides some kind of moral authority ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Are you implying that superior weapon technology provides some kind of moral authority ?

When moral authority doesn't fill the bill try moral equivalency.  They slaughtered and enslaved each other too, if not us then someone else would have, it was a different age.  Our ancestors probably said the same things to themselves about Neanderthals.

What makes our age different is that we've evolved a keener sense of justice, with legal principles and laws that match.

I suppose it's just not fair that we have to be the first to bear the burden of progress and evolution but it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...